An Open Letter To Steve Giddins

[Phil Makepeace]

The original article, together with preamble and context, can be found here.

Here is a family-friendly version of what was said:

'There is an interesting PS to this. I was contacted yesterday evening by someone who met Makepeace at a 4NCL weekend. He describes him as "a detestable, arrogant f---er", who was "vulgar, loud, sexist and alcohol-fuelled". Of course, one should be careful of judging someone on the basis of an "impromptu meeting"...'

Here is my reply:

Mr. Giddins,


It didn't have to come to this. I have repeatedly requested that you qualify the comments you published on your Facebook wall on Friday February 22. Or, alternatively, simply apologise for publishing them in the first place.

We have never met. I therefore find it puzzling that you would not entertain the prospect of your source having provided inaccurate information. I understand why you refuse to name your source, unless of course they don't exist, in which case you've just been shooting for adjectives in a barrel of your own lies.

I am not parading myself as a paragon of virtue. Just so we're clear, I am particularly unhappy about the terms sexist and alcohol-fuelled, considering I am a feminist campaigner who barely drinks.

Now, of course, this is not the first time our paths have crossed like this. In 2011, Release The Kraken published two fairly scathing articles about what I perceived to be a lack of journalistic integrity on your part. I regret some of what I said, particularly suggesting you might have had a nervous breakdown. I now realise that it was insensitive to say that about someone without a brain.

I once again call on you to do the following things:

1. Name your source.
2. Publish a retraction and apology.

If you think that this is over, then you're wrong.


Phil Makepeace

London W12

[Carl Hibbard]

Should this perhaps be on the S&B blog rather than here?

[Phil Makepeace]

It is an open letter. And it is no business of the Streatham & Brixton blog. If you wish to move this thread to the RTK section in Links, I will have no objection.

[Ben Purton]

Phil, if this source things YOU are that.........

Please can I have his view of me................!!!!!

[John McKenna]

He may consider you to be the Charlie Sheen of chess, since that is who you appear portray yourself as. He obviously views Phil M as a real danger to life and limb and would like to exchange that cartoon shark for an image of a Great White.

[Andrew Camp]

[IanDavis]

I find the slight on Mr Makepeace's reputation to be uninteresting. What puzzles me, is why this man has so many sources. In particular, I am interested to the identity of the 'ECF insider'. Why did he/she/they, when so many other 'outlets' were available, chose this very unbecoming one? Mud sticks, after all, particularly to small fragments of wood.

[Reg Clucas]

SG now claims to be shutting down his blog. A pity if true, since it can be quite entertaining, though it has to be said that some of his comments about certain individuals are a bit over the top.

No doubt there will be certain contributors to this forum who will be grateful to Phil for precipitating this!

[Peter D Williams]

One can take legal action if something is wrote about you that is not true or damages you.

May be frost tonight.

[Phil Makepeace]

I take no pleasure in 'precipitating' anything. On this occasion, I merely took a stand where I thought one was due. I thank Steve for apologising and hope that we can all move on from this.

[Roger de Coverly]

SG now claims to be shutting down his blog.

That would be for the second time. The first blog vanished without direct trace as all the postings were deleted.

It will remain unanswered as to why SG took it upon himself to defend Andrew Paulson against a sceptical blog post written by somebody he (SG) had never met and knew little about.

[Andrew Zigmond]

There will be many on this forum who feel differently but I will be sorry to see the end of Steve Giddins' blog. Obviously I didn't always agree with the content; mainly because I found his continued attacks on Ernie Lazenby unsettling and other comments he made were at times unnecessarily personal when the individual had done nothing to provoke it.

However he is a chess writer of the first order and his articles about chess history and studies/ problems more than made up for the other articles. It should also be noted that - almost alone among the chess establishment - he passionately and vigorously defended Lara Barnes after the atrocious treatment she received in the wake of Sheffield and relentlessly challenged many (not all) of those responsible.

The `termitewatch` articles I could live with, even though it should be noted that I somehow managed to dodge his ire (I was referred to as `one of the worst termites currently active` when a contributor temporarily withdrew following an argument that was primarily with me but wasn't mentioned by name). This forum can sometimes turn unnecessarily heated and the subject matter can verge on the ridiculous (the infamous sandwich thread springs to mind) and - let's face it - with the exception of a handful of ECF officials, major event organisers and titled players who post here - this is largely a forum for strong minded grassroots players who have too much time on their hands. If the odd satirical article points out how daft a thread may look to the casual observer then that's the price we might have to pay. Obviously there comes a point when righteous outrage and/ or `satirical fun poking` becomes unnecessarily personal - I for one learnt that the hard way.

Cutting through the waffle if Steve Giddins is reading this I'll happily say that - in the main - I enjoyed your blog and will miss future installments.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Cutting through the waffle if Steve Giddins is reading this I'll happily say that - in the main - I enjoyed your blog and will miss future installments.

Me too. I only looked in occasionally, but his "on topic" blog posts (for want of a better phrase) were excellent. Which is not to say I will miss the "other" posts he made (the humour was at times funny, but often crossed a line, as he seems to have realised).

[Barry Sandercock]

The endgame studies were very good. Maybe the blog could be continued, just concentrating on these ?

[IanDavis]

What a jolly good idea! Then again, is the Nimzowitsch defense really sound?